Posted by richard on October 07, 2000 at 15:35:19:
In Reply to: Succession Rights??!!! posted by Tramar on October 06, 2000 at 17:47:51:
Vartarian v. Brady
Nephew attains succession rights because such rights accrued before June 19, 1997 when the law changed to exclude nephews from the roster of family members who may succeed to a tenancy after the prime tenant has permanently vacated or died.
Keywords: succession rights
Court: Civil Court, New York County
Judge: Hon. Lucy Billings
Date: September 29, 1999
Citation: NYLJ, page 27, col 5
Referred Statutes: 9 NYCRR 2204.6(d); Public Housing Law 14(4); Administrative Code 26-403(2); RPAPL 741
Since 1997, the tenant has lived in Far Rockaway to care for her ailing brother. Left in the apartment was the tenant's nephew who resided with the tenant from 1992 until she vacated in 1997. Before 1997, the law granted nephews succession rights, and the nephew would have become the tenant of record had the law not changed because he lived with his aunt for two years before she permanently vacated. However, on June 19, 1997, the law changed to exclude nephews from obtaining succession rights. The issue before the court was whether the new law should be applied etroactively. The court held that it should not, citing various case law for the principle that "[w]here a new law confers a tenancy right, the law is applied retroactively, but where it takes away a right conferred by the old law, the new law is not applied retroactively." Since the nephew would be evicted if the new law was applied retroactively, the court concluded that the old law (when his rights accrued) applies. In that regard, the nephew was made the tenant of record
If the rent stabilized apartment. The court also held that the 1997 new law's rent increases in succession rights cases do not apply to the nephew. This is because the vacancy allowance is available when the tenant has vacated on the effective date of the law (June, 1997). The nephew, however, who was the de facto tenant on this date, was still in possession.
Thus, the court ruled that the vacancy increases do not kick in against the nephew. The court also ruled that the petition should be dismissed because the agent who signed the notice of termination had lost his authority since his principle, the owner, died about a month earlier. The authority of an agent terminates at death of the principle. Additionally, there was no authorized person to act on behalf of the owner's estate when the proceeding commenced. Without an effective predicate notice, a holdover proceeding cannot be maintained.
Note: Posting is disabled in all archives
Post a Followup